Activity of ertapenem/zidebactam (WCK 6777) against problem Enterobacterales.

BACKGROUND: Secondary healthcare will remain pressured for some years, both because SARS-CoV-2 will circulate as a nosocomial pathogen, and owing to backlogs of patients awaiting delayed elective procedures. These stresses will drive the use of Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy (OPAT), which will need to cover increasingly resistant Gram-negative opportunists. We evaluated the activity of ertapenem/zidebactam, proposed for 2 + 2 g q24h administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MICs were determined, by BSAC agar dilution, for 1632 Enterobacterales submitted to the UK national reference laboratory for investigation of antimicrobial resistance. RESULTS: Over 90% of Escherichia coli with AmpC, ESBLs, KPC, metallo- or OXA-48 carbapenemases were inhibited by ertapenem/zidebactam 1:1 at ertapenem's current 0.5 mg/L breakpoint. For other major Enterobacterales, the proportions inhibited by ertapenem/zidebactam 1:1 at 0.5 mg/L were mostly 65% to 90% but were lower for Klebsiella pneumoniae/oxytoca with metallo- or OXA-48 ß-lactamases. However, animal studies support an 8 mg/L breakpoint for ertapenem/zidebactam, based on a shortened T>MIC being needed compared with ertapenem alone. On this basis ertapenem/zidebactam would count as active against 90%-100% of isolates in all groups except K. pneumoniae/oxytoca with MBLs (±OXA-48), where MICs and percent susceptibility vary substantially even with inocula within the BSAC acceptable range. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem/zidebactam has a proposed once-daily regimen well suited to OPAT. Even on highly conservative breakpoint projections, it has potential against MDR E. coli, including metallo-carbapenemase producers. If trial data sustain the 8 mg/L breakpoint indicated by animal experiments, its potential will extend widely across infections due to ESBL-, AmpC- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales.

Sulopenem: An Intravenous and Oral Penem for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections Due to Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.

Sulopenem (formerly known as CP-70,429, and CP-65,207 when a component of a racemic mixture with its R isomer) is an intravenous and oral penem that possesses in vitro activity against fluoroquinolone-resistant, extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacterales. Sulopenem is being developed to treat patients with uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) as well as intra-abdominal infections. This review will focus mainly on its use in UTIs. The chemical structure of sulopenem shares properties of penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Sulopenem is available as an oral prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, which is hydrolyzed by intestinal esterases, resulting in active sulopenem. In early studies, the S isomer of CP-65,207, later developed as sulopenem, demonstrated greater absorption, higher drug concentrations in the urine, and increased stability against the renal enzyme dehydropeptidase-1 compared with the R isomer, which set the stage for its further development as a UTI antimicrobial. Sulopenem is active against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive microorganisms. Sulopenem's ß-lactam ring alkylates the serine residues of penicillin-binding protein (PBP), which inhibits peptidoglycan cross-linking. Due to its ionization and low molecular weight, sulopenem passes through outer membrane proteins to reach PBPs of Gram-negative bacteria. While sulopenem activity is unaffected by many ß-lactamases, resistance arises from alterations in PBPs (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), expression of carbapenemases (e.g., carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), reduction in the expression of outer membrane proteins (e.g., some Klebsiella spp.), and the presence of efflux pumps (e.g., MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas aeruginosa), or a combination of these mechanisms. In vitro studies have reported that sulopenem demonstrates greater activity than meropenem and ertapenem against Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, as well as similar activity to carbapenems against Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes. With some exceptions, sulopenem activity against Gram-negative aerobes was less than ertapenem and meropenem but greater than imipenem. Sulopenem activity against Escherichia coli carrying ESBL, CTX-M, or Amp-C enzymes, or demonstrating MDR phenotypes, as well as against ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, was nearly identical to ertapenem and meropenem and greater than imipenem. Sulopenem exhibited identical or slightly greater activity than imipenem against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis. The pharmacokinetics of intravenous sulopenem appear similar to carbapenems such as imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and doripenem. In healthy subjects, reported volumes of distribution (Vd) ranged from 15.8 to 27.6 L, total drug clearances (CLT) of 18.9-24.9 L/h, protein binding of approximately 10%, and elimination half-lives (t½) of 0.88-1.03 h. The estimated renal clearance (CLR) of sulopenem is 8.0-10.6 L/h, with 35.5% ± 6.7% of a 1000 mg dose recovered unchanged in the urine. An ester prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, has been developed for oral administration. Initial investigations reported a variable oral bioavailability of 20-34% under fasted conditions, however subsequent work showed that bioavailability is significantly improved by administering sulopenem with food to increase its oral absorption or with probenecid to reduce its renal tubular secretion. Food consumption increases the area under the curve (AUC) of oral sulopenem (500 mg twice daily) by 23.6% when administered alone and 62% when administered with 500 mg of probenecid. Like carbapenems, sulopenem demonstrates bactericidal activity that is associated with the percentage of time that free concentrations exceed the MIC (%f T > MIC). In animal models, bacteriostasis was associated with %f T > MICs ranging from 8.6 to 17%, whereas 2-log10 kill was seen at values ranging from 12 to 28%. No pharmacodynamic targets have been documented for suppression of resistance. Sulopenem concentrations in urine are variable, ranging from 21.8 to 420.0 mg/L (median 84.4 mg/L) in fasted subjects and 28.8 to 609.0 mg/L (median 87.3 mg/L) in those who were fed. Sulopenem has been compared with carbapenems and cephalosporins in guinea pig and murine systemic and lung infection animal models. Studied pathogens included Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, B. fragilis, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Proteus vulgaris, and Serratia marcescens. These studies reported that overall, sulopenem was non-inferior to carbapenems but appeared to be superior to cephalosporins. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-1) reported that sulopenem was not non-inferior to ciprofloxacin in women infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible pathogens, due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in sulopenem-treated patients at the test-of-cure visit. However, the researchers reported superiority of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid over ciprofloxacin for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in women infected with fluoroquinolone/non-susceptible pathogens, and non-inferiority in all patients with a positive urine culture. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-2) compared intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid with ertapenem in the treatment of complicated UTIs. No difference in overall success was noted at the end of therapy. However, intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil was not non-inferior to ertapenem followed by oral stepdown therapy in overall success at test-of-cure due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem arm. After a meeting with the US FDA, Iterum stated that they are currently evaluating the optimal design for an additional phase III uncomplicated UTI study to be conducted prior to the potential resubmission of the New Drug Application (NDA). It is unclear at this time whether Iterum intends to apply for EMA or Japanese regulatory approval. The safety and tolerability of sulopenem has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase III clinical trials. Sulopenem (intravenous and oral) appears to be well tolerated in healthy subjects, with and without the coadministration of probenecid, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported to date. Reported TEAEs affecting ≥1% of patients were (from most to least common) diarrhea, nausea, headache, vomiting and dizziness. Discontinuation rates were low and were not different than comparator agents. Sulopenem administered orally and/or intravenously represents a potentially well tolerated and effective option for treating uncomplicated and complicated UTIs, especially in patients with documented or highly suspected antimicrobial pathogens to commonly used agents (e.g. fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli), and in patients with documented microbiological or clinical failure or patients who demonstrate intolerance/adverse effects to first-line agents. This agent will likely be used orally in the outpatient setting, and intravenously followed by oral stepdown in the hospital setting. Sulopenem also allows for oral stepdown therapy in the hospital setting from intravenous non-sulopenem therapy. More clinical data are required to fully assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sulopenem, especially in patients with complicated UTIs caused by resistant pathogens such as ESBL-producing, Amp-C, MDR E. coli. Antimicrobial stewardship programs will need to create guidelines for when this oral and intravenous penem should be used.

Oral Tebipenem Pivoxil Hydrobromide in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for oral antibiotic agents that are effective against multidrug-resistant gram-negative uropathogens. Tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide is an orally bioavailable carbapenem with activity against uropathogenic Enterobacterales, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing and fluoroquinolone-resistant strains. METHODS: In this phase 3, international, double-blind, double-dummy trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of orally administered tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide as compared with intravenous ertapenem in patients with complicated urinary tract infection or acute pyelonephritis. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive oral tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (at a dose of 600 mg every 8 hours) or intravenous ertapenem (at a dose of 1 g every 24 hours) for 7 to 10 days (or up to 14 days in patients with bacteremia). The primary efficacy end point was overall response (a composite of clinical cure and favorable microbiologic response) at a test-of-cure visit (on day 19, within a ±2-day window) in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population. The noninferiority margin was 12.5%. RESULTS: A total of 1372 hospitalized adult patients were enrolled; 868 patients (63.3%) were included in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (50.8% of whom had complicated urinary tract infections and 49.2% of whom had pyelonephritis). An overall response was seen in 264 of 449 patients (58.8%) who received tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide, as compared with 258 of 419 patients (61.6%) who received ertapenem (weighted difference, -3.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.7 to 3.2). Clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit was observed in 93.1% of the patients in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population who received tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide and 93.6% of patients who received ertapenem (weighted difference, -0.6 percentage point; 95% CI, -4.0 to 2.8); the majority of patients with microbiologic response failures at the test-of-cure visit were asymptomatic patients with recurrent bacteriuria. Secondary and subgroup analyses were supportive of the primary analysis. Adverse events were observed in 25.7% of patients who received tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide and in 25.6% of patients who received ertapenem; the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Oral tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide was noninferior to intravenous ertapenem in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection and acute pyelonephritis and had a similar safety profile. (Funded by Spero Therapeutics and the Department of Health and Human Services; ADAPT-PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03788967.).

Nationwide surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in invasive isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in Taiwan from 2017 to 2019.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Streptococcus pneumoniae causes pneumonia and other invasive diseases, and is a leading cause of mortality in the elderly population. The present study aimed to provide current antimicrobial resistance and epidemiological profiles of S. pneumoniae infections in Taiwan. METHODS: A total of 252 nonduplicate S. pneumoniae isolates were collected from patients admitted to 16 hospitals in Taiwan between January 2017 and December 2019, and were analyzed. The minimum inhibitory concentration of antibiotics was determined using the Vitek 2 automated system for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Furthermore, epidemiological profiles of S. pneumoniae infections were analyzed. RESULTS: Among the strains analyzed, 88% were recognized as invasive pneumococcal strains. According to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute criteria for non-meningitis, the prevalence of penicillin-non-susceptible S. pneumoniae demonstrated a declining trend from 43.6% in 2017 to 17.2% in 2019. However, the rate of penicillin-non-susceptible S. pneumoniae was 85.7% based on the criteria for meningitis. Furthermore, the prevalence of ceftriaxone-non-susceptible S. pneumoniae was 62.7% based on the criteria for meningitis. Isolates demonstrated higher susceptibility toward doripenem and ertapenem than toward meropenem and imipenem. An increased rate of non-susceptibility toward levofloxacin was observed in southern Taiwan (15.1%) and elderly patients (≥65 years; 11.4%). Most isolates were susceptible to vancomycin and linezolid. CONCLUSION: Empirical treatment with ceftriaxone monotherapy for pneumococcal meningitis should be carefully monitored owing to its high non-susceptibility rate. The susceptibility rates of most isolates to penicillin (used for treating non-meningitis pneumococcal diseases), carbapenems (ertapenem and doripenem), respiratory quinolones (moxifloxacin and levofloxacin), vancomycin, and linezolid suggested the potential of these antibiotics in treating pneumococcal diseases in Taiwan.

Daily inpatient ertapenem therapy can be an alternative to hospitalization for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Physicians hospitalize the patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) when they need intravenous antibiotics and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is unavailable. Daily inpatient antimicrobial therapy is an alternative to hospitalization, which is similar to OPAT; patients go home after they are administered antibiotics in a separate room in the hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: We assessed our previous daily inpatient practice to revitalize the model in the COVID-19 era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical and microbiological responses and the cost effectiveness of the patients with cUTIs who received daily inpatient ertapenem therapy. RESULTS: Our study population was 136 patients in 156 episodes. It was a difficult-to-treat group with older age (mean 63.0 ± 14.8 years) and a high burden of underlying conditions (86.5%). The most common causative organisms were Escherichia coli (74.4%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.2%); 89.7% of the isolates were producing extended-spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL). The microbiologic and clinical success rates were 82.1% and 95.5%, respectively. The patients required hospitalization in 16 episodes (10.2%) because of clinical failures (3.8%), superinfections (2%), planned invasive interventions (3.2%), and side effects (1.2%). Our university hospital saved 1608 bed-days and 2596 € (9702 TL) bed costs. CONCLUSIONS: In the COVID-19 pandemic period, this seems to be an effective, safe, and cost-effective way to decrease hospitalizations for cUTIs in settings where OPAT is unavailable.